IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/cambje/v48y2024i3p397-424..html
   My bibliography  Save this article

William Thompson and John Stuart Mill on co-operation and the rights of women

Author

Listed:
  • Renee Prendergast

Abstract

William Thompson and, later, John Stuart Mill argued that women’s inferior position in society was a product of their environment and upbringing. As such, access to the franchise, and opportunities for education and employment would improve the welfare and position of women. Recognition of women’s reproductive roles led Thompson to argue that equality of outcome for women could not be achieved within the competitive framework and required a re-organisation of society into self-supporting co-operative communities in which women’s reproductive role would be valued and childcare and catering provided communally. While John Stuart Mill advocated access for women into all employments, he thought that a purely domestic role was consistent with women’s emancipation provided that role was freely chosen. Free choice was supported by better outside options but the bargaining power of women choosing the domestic route was not addressed by Mill. Mill supported co-operation but his favoured form involved co-operative ownership of firms operating within competitive markets. He believed that a society based on co-operation would foster favourable attitudes towards women’s emancipation and moral improvement more generally, but he saw no direct relationship between the development of co-operative enterprise and the status of women.

Suggested Citation

  • Renee Prendergast, 2024. "William Thompson and John Stuart Mill on co-operation and the rights of women," Cambridge Journal of Economics, Cambridge Political Economy Society, vol. 48(3), pages 397-424.
  • Handle: RePEc:oup:cambje:v:48:y:2024:i:3:p:397-424.
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1093/cje/beae010
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:oup:cambje:v:48:y:2024:i:3:p:397-424.. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Oxford University Press (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://academic.oup.com/cje .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.